Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft, Past and Future

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 203 posts

Re: Microsoft, Past and Future

#71

Post by acqq »

csmithuk wrote: post #25
acqq wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but I just can't believe you're real. Red Hat has the most stable (measued in the years of support without the change in the underlying technologies) OS configurations of all commercial offerings. What was that that you got better supported from Microsoft than from Red Hat? Specifics please.

Actually no. We get 13-14 years out of Microsoft offerings which is enough lead time for test, provisioning and an 8-10 year lifecycle. Plus due to overlap we have enough time to test v.next. With respect to support you get a very narrow configuration of supported software and hardware with RH. Keeping it rolling isn't as easy as it looks. The developer support is awful as well. Documentation is shitty,you're tied to…

I see, so you use .NET and complain about the fact that Oracle owns Java. And somehow you blame Red Hat for all that.

Re: Microsoft, Past and Future

#72

Post by ancarda »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #63
beloch wrote: post #28

What I find surprising is that, in the process of writing a historical review on Microsoft, anyone would ignore the fact that MS has repeatedly identified areas of profit, moved in, failed spectacularly, iterated aggressively, and ultimately become dominant, at least for a time. e.g. What killed Netscape? Microsoft's surface tablets are signs of big things to come. They're currently too expensive for what they are, b…

Did Microsoft profit from browsers? Or was it a threat to existing platform profits that it temporarily pushed back via antitrust-inducing bundling tactics in order to scorch the earth for others trying to make inroads? And looking back, how did that go for them, they may have stalled human progress for a while, but what did they do with the time it bought them?

The Web is/was a threat to Microsoft because if everything is a web app you suddenly have no platform lock in. I think Google foresaw this, or is at-least betting on it, with Chrome OS. Why would anyone use Windows; an expensive, proprietary, bug ridden OS when they can use Linux or Chrome OS to perform the same tasks?

Re: Microsoft, Past and Future

#73

Post by csmithuk »

acqq wrote: post #71
csmithuk wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually no. We get 13-14 years out of Microsoft offerings which is enough lead time for test, provisioning and an 8-10 year lifecycle. Plus due to overlap we have enough time to test v.next. With respect to support you get a very narrow configuration of supported software and hardware with RH. Keeping it rolling isn't as easy as it looks. The developer support is awful as well. Documentation is shitty,you're tied to…

I see, so you use .NET and complain about the fact that Oracle owns Java. And somehow you blame Red Hat for all that.

No. I complain that Red Hat support a bastardised version of Java (and Eclipse) that ships with their OS meaning that for the sake of sanity you have to deal with Oracle and RH to get a cohesive platform versus the single vendor. Subtly different.

Re: Microsoft, Past and Future

#74

Post by no_gravity »

josteink wrote: post #39
no_gravity wrote: post #23

"Microsoft services, sending data to and from every networked device in the world" There already are servers sending data everywhere. For example the servers of Google, Facebook and Wikipedia. How would Microsoft convince those guys or new companies to get rid of their solid, free and open stack and pay for Microsofts closed stuff? This is much different from "A computer on every desk and in every home running Micros…

How would Microsoft convince those guys or new companies to get rid of their solid, free and open stack and pay for Microsofts closed stuff? They don't have to. They can keep on using their free and open stack, but moving to Azure instead of using Google compute engine or AWS.

Then Microsoft would be just another provider of virtual servers. I dont think thats a good future goal for a 300 billion dollar company.

Conversely to Gruber, I see Microsofts future in client software and hardware. Apple and Google have put computers in every pocket. But only the consumption part of it. The race for the production tablet has just started. And with the Surface Pro, Microsoft has the first product out there.

Re: Microsoft, Past and Future

#75

Post by microtonal »

gnaffle wrote: post #31
spiderPig wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't sound like a good habit to have in this industry, things change and software evolves. Android's first few versions sucked..a lot for instance. Heck, most the of the early versions of OSS suck. Are you saying there should be a constant rate of change? If you're a programmer, you should really try coding on Visual Studio 2012/.NET/F# and C#. It's a breeze. Very smooth compared to Eclipse.

How is it compared to IntelliJ?

I am not a Windows user or developer. But JetBrain's Resharper brings much of IntelliJ's refactoring support to Visual Studio.

Re: Microsoft, Past and Future

#76

Post by GotAnyMegadeth »

josteink wrote: post #32
23arboo wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speculation: Azure will get a decent priority now that Nadedlla is CEO. Azure has been playing catcup with aws for quite some time now.

Azure has been playing catcup with aws for quite some time now. And it shows. A year ago I wouldn't even consider Azure as a platform. Now I'm starting to wonder if AWS is worth it. They've been iterating like crazy .

All I can add is that, from a fairly n00by point of view, Windows Azure is easy to use and clear, AWS is messy and difficult. Also the free trial of Azure is brilliant, the AWS is so crippled it makes it feel like their whole service is lame.

Re: Microsoft, Past and Future

#77

Post by JonoW »

sillysaurus2 wrote: post #43
beloch wrote: post #28

What I find surprising is that, in the process of writing a historical review on Microsoft, anyone would ignore the fact that MS has repeatedly identified areas of profit, moved in, failed spectacularly, iterated aggressively, and ultimately become dominant, at least for a time. e.g. What killed Netscape? Microsoft's surface tablets are signs of big things to come. They're currently too expensive for what they are, b…

Which problems do Surface tablets solve? For example, iPhone completely changed my life overnight, mostly due to its navigation features and ability to look up phone numbers. I think Surface will only be dominant if it solves a problem for people. So, which problem does it solve, and why is it useful for people?

Combining 2 devices into 1. This is useful for many people. While there are compromises with hybrids, sometimes the end result is good enough for people, e.g. camera phones.

Re: Microsoft, Past and Future

#78

Post by valleyer »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #29

Steve Fucking Jobs said that (the desktop PC was dead and innovation had virtually ceased). He was exactly right. And who knows where we’d be today if Jobs and Next had not been reunified with Apple the next year. As a Windows user, I suspect I'd be about where I am today, except that I wouldn't have to install ClassicShell to get rid of Metro.

You don't think the success of the Mac over the last 10 years has pushed Windows to become better than it would have been?

Re: Microsoft, Past and Future

#79

Post by acqq »

csmithuk wrote: post #73
acqq wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see, so you use .NET and complain about the fact that Oracle owns Java. And somehow you blame Red Hat for all that.

No. I complain that Red Hat support a bastardised version of Java (and Eclipse) that ships with their OS meaning that for the sake of sanity you have to deal with Oracle and RH to get a cohesive platform versus the single vendor. Subtly different.

Isn't the "bastardized version" of Java actually the "Java as supported by Red Hat"? If you don't want RH's support but still want some support of course you have to depend on some other company.

And the reason why you consider RH's version "bastardized" is, I assume, that it's not "the newest and latest." Which is the main argument with which we started: that RH intentionally doesn't push "newest" all the time in order to have long support cycles.

Your argument for Microsoft was that their technology changes slower, and then complain that RH technology doesn't change fast enough?

Re: Microsoft, Past and Future

#80

Post by arethuza »

smokinn wrote: post #66
arethuza wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you might be straining the terminology just a bit by referring to cloud services installed inside a corporate firewall. What would make that different from traditional internally deployed applications like SharePoint? "Plenty of companies are large enough to own their own racks of virtualized servers and would pay good money to run well integrated Microsoft software on them." They already do - that's where a…

You're right. I was purposely straining the term. What I'm saying is that CIOs of pretty much every medium to largish company needs to justify their salary to the other C*s. If he can justify it in terms of cost savings he justifies his salary. Right now, big companies either buy appliances (at huge cost and medium support cost) or build their own networks at small (or maybe huge) cost and huge support cost. And what…

"any CIO will call a rack of servers with any virtualization vendors' software running on the bunch of them as the cloud"

Not if they are responsible for the CapEx, administration, upgrades, data center space etc.

I would state that the defining characteristic of "cloud computing" as far as senior managers go is that these things are all someone else's problem and all you are left with is a predictable monthly/yearly fee, application support and making sure your users have a decent internet connection.

Post reply on HN